Importer Challenges Legality of Section 232 Steel/Aluminum Content "Guidance"

Tweet

Jan. 30, 2026
By: Austin J. Eighan

Any importer of goods subject to Section 232 has likely tried to sort out how to calculate the value of the material versus the value of the imported article. Attempting to do that quickly leads to the conclusion that Customs does not appear to agree with itself on this question. On January 27, importer Express Fasteners filed suit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), challenging one of the two (at least) Customs interpretations.

As part of President Trump’s June 2025 proclamation increasing Section 232 steel tariffs to 50% (as discussed here), he declared the additional duty is limited to the “steel content” of covered articles. The proclamation did not state how the steel content value is to be calculated. Instead, he ordered CBP to “issue authoritative guidance mandating strict compliance with declaration requirements.”

Since the proclamation, CBP has not released formal (and certainly not “authoritative”) guidance or promulgated regulations articulating how to make steel content calculation. However, the agency issued a public statement via its Cargo Systems Messaging Service directing importers to declare two separate values upon import: one for steel content and one for non-steel content. Consistent with President Trump’s orders limiting overlapping tariffs (as discussed here), this split allows CBP to assess Section 232 duties on the steel content and IEEPA reciprocal duties on the non-steel content. The agency has also published instructions on its Section 232 FAQs webpage stating that the value of the steel content should be calculated as “the total price paid or payable for that content,” which is normally based on the invoice paid by the buyer of the steel content (i.e., foreign manufacturer) to the seller of that content.

Based on this published guidance, Express Fasteners declared the steel content value of its screws and fasteners as the cost incurred by the manufacturer to purchase the steel used to produce the merchandise. The company paid the 50% Section 232 tariff on that declared steel value. For the remaining non-steel value, which included costs associated with machining; fabrication; factory overhead; and seller profit, the importer deposited estimated duties under the applicable IEEPA reciprocal tariff rate for Taiwan, the country of origin.

After reviewing the company’s steel cost calculations, part of Customs rejected the company’s methodology and applied the 50% Section 232 duty rate to the entire entered value of the screws and fasteners, not merely to the value of the steel purchased by the manufacturer to produce the merchandise. CBP’s reasoning is reflected in an unpublished December 3 memorandum issued by its Base Metals Center of Excellence and Expertise (CEE) (as discussed here). That document bases the Section 232 steel content on “what the importer paid” for the content rather than the foreign manufacturer. The document directs importers to calculate this value by subtracting the cost of the non-steel component(s) from the entered value of the finished good. This methodology prevents importers from subtracting certain costs not directly associated with the value of the steel, such as manufacturing, labor, coating, etc. In other words, not on the value of the steel, but on the value of the steel and other factors.

The complaint emphasizes that neither the CEE Memo, nor its contents, have been published as a regulation or in any other official format. To the extent the informal, unpublished CEE memo purports to amend the publicly available guidance (i.e., the CSMS message and FAQ webpage), Express Fasteners argues that CBP was obligated to adhere to notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures under 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c) and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553. Express also alleges that assessing Section 232 duties based on the identification of a single component material establishes an arbitrary and capricious method of appraisement in violation of the valuation statute (19 U.S.C. § 1401a(f)(2)(G)).

Importers of steel, aluminum, copper, and other goods will want to watch this litigation closely, because Customs has similar problems across 232 cases. However, the case has broader implications in that it tests whether individual CEEs are able to create law. In such an environment, companies might be impacted more by the CEE they are assigned to than currently. In addition, the difficulty of complying in an environment where memoranda (not on letterhead) unofficially circulated and not attributed to an author are “official” is exponentially higher than it already is.

If your company would like to discuss how to mitigate Section 232 compliance risks or the potential impact of CBP’s steel-content valuation approach on your imports, please reach out to one of our attorneys at Barnes, Richardson & Colburn.